Law Enforcement Resources Should Be Used to Protect against Real Crimes

I’m a very straight-laced guy. Some would even say boring. I’ve never done drugs, for instance.

But not because they’re illegal. I’ve never done drugs for the reason that I’ve never smoked cigarettes. Just doesn’t seem like a smart thing to do. And I encourage friends and family to have the same approach.

That being said, I’ve never thought we should criminalize things simply because I don’t like them.

Particularly when it would make a lot more sense to focus law enforcement resources on stopping crimes against people and property. This new video from Learn Liberty explains further.

But this isn’t about cost-benefit analysis. Watch this powerful video from Reason TV about how one family has been victimized by drug prohibition.

Now ask yourself what purpose it served to have local cops basically entrap that unfortunate kid? If you come up with an answer, you have a very creative imagination.

One misguided government policy leading to two other bad policies. That’s Mitchell’s Law on steroids!

P.S. Drugs do impose costs, but they’re mostly incurred by moronic users. Though there sometimes are collateral victims, such as kids whose parents allow their lives to get messed up. That’s why it would be nice if drugs somehow didn’t exist. Heck, the same things could be said about booze. Or tobacco. But they do exist. The libertarian position isn’t that these things are good. Instead, our position is that prohibition does more harm than good.

[…] their videos, including the ones on the Great Depression, central banking, government spending, and the Drug War. And the videos on myths of capitalism, the miracle of modern prosperity, and the legality of […]

[…] fan of the Learn Liberty videos on the Great Depression, central banking, government spending, and the Drug War. And the videos on myths of capitalism, the miracle of modern prosperity, and the legality of […]

[…] fan of the Learn Liberty videos on the Great Depression, central banking, government spending, and the Drug War. And the videos on myths of capitalism, the miracle of modern prosperity, and the legality of […]

[…] fan of the Learn Liberty videos on the Great Depression, central banking, government spending, and the Drug War. And the videos on myths of capitalism, the miracle of modern prosperity, and the legality of […]

I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your willful naivety makes it difficult. Less regulation or cost-benefit analysis will not result in more freedom because the fraudsters that would make these decisions don’t want it. Allow me to make a couple of points to clarify:

– the reason we don’t get a return on our anti-money-laundering dollar is the same reason we don’t get a return from the people we pay at the SEC, CFTC, and other regulators that don’t equally enforce the rule of law on the banksters and other market manipulators – the regulators are “owned” by the biggest fraudsters they are supposed to regulate.

– the biggest bad guys in the money laundering arena are the bankster banks that launder the money for the drug cartels. Why don’t the regulators simply shut down these banks for committing felonies instead of imposing cost-of-doing-business fines? Nothing happens to the key cogs in the drug trade wheel because how else could the drug profits be used to fund the unlawful acts that could not get funded by Congress?

– the pretense of “doing the right thing”, like catching money laundering or balancing our budget, is always used by the establishment to bring the greatest harm to the public, not the bad guys. After all, why would the banksters or politicians harm themselves? Burdening the general public with unnecessary forms and disclosures while permitting the actual money launderers (the banks) to police themselves demonstrates a similar hypocrisy as Congress shutting down parks and memorials instead of downsizing the govt money pits and true non-essential agencies that have created the debt crisis. The banksters fund the campaigns of lawmakers and bribe/blackmail the law enforcer’s to keep issuing debt that pays them interest to fund promises that can NEVER be paid. Whether it’s increasing the fees and interest from issuing ever more debt, or taking their cut from the hugely profitable drug trade, for the bankster banks, it’s simply about the money. The fox’s are in charge of the hen houses, while you and the mainstream media put up propaganda shades on the hen house to actually see what’s happening.

Instead of attacking the source of the problem, either the banks or the huge profits, you want to make it easier for the drug trade to fund elicit activities. As a Libertarian, you should favor making drugs legal and taxing it, which would eliminate the huge profits that make money laundering even necessary. The wasteful private prison business would evaporate, and we would stop ruining the lives of millions that commit two-bit drug crimes, which turns them into an expense instead of a tax paying resource. It would also de-fund all the criminal activities that are dependent on drug money, like bribing foreign leaders, funding insurgents like Al-Qaeda and Liberty-killing govt surveillance, etc. For God sake, know your history of the drug trade.

I’m not holding my breadth because we’re not going to see less regulation and more freedom. I’m holding it because the propagandist NEVER ask the right questions, because they falsely believe in their power to deceive indefinitely, which ultimately leads to their downfall of a fraudulent system they think they can sustain. We will see less regulation and more freedom because capital is moving from public hands to private, which will collapse over-reaching govt, and provide the folks with easy access to all the collaborators who will be dragged into the streets or hunted down like war criminals.